Artificial Neural Nets

> In article <3ngtbp$pgs at news.tuwien.ac.at>, e8627164 at fbma.tuwien.ac.at (Otto Hain
> zl) writes:
> >Daniel Rabinovitch (drabinov at cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
> >I think the flow is from natural NN's to artificial NN's but never back.
> >This means that the artificial neuronal networks are modeled after there
> >natural counterpart but not for giving feedback on the research done there.
> >Same with genetic algorithms.
> >
> >Otto
This is an interesting claim. A colleague and I were discussing just last week that
we could not think of a single example (outside of visual perception) where studies
of real neuronal networks have lead to a better understanding of a specific aspect
of human cognitive behavior.
Can anybody give me examples where neurophysiology studies produced better (or even
different) theories of cognition? (I will not accept general claims of modularity,
distributed coding, and the like, I am looking for something specific.)
It seems to me that the direction is mostly the _reverse_ of the above claim.
Researchers look for neurophysiological evidence of cognitive theories (whether they
be guised as neural networks or otherwise).
--
Greg Francis, PhD | "It's the opposite of fun. It's golf."
Cognitive Psychology | Ellen Degeneres, "These Friends Of Mine"
Purdue University | http://www.psych.purdue.edu/cognitive.html
Assistant Professor | NeXTMail OK.